Post by rimbecano on Sept 7, 2019 0:33:07 GMT -6
The first ship I rebuild as a CV is often a Tsukuba-style or Sesquidreadnought battlecruiser. In theory, it would be easy to meet the 8x8" requirement with these: Strip the mains, leave the secondaries (though you may need to move them somewhat to meet flight and hangar deck geometry requirements, but you're already completely revamping the superstructure), and voila, you have 8x8. Of course, since you can't have secondaries without mains, this won't work. Moving the secondaries and tertiaries up to mains and secondaries in the exact same configuration ends up being a considerable extra expense, because the game treats the guns as all new. Also, some valid secondary configurations (triple turrets), are invalid as main configurations (no triple wing turrets).
*Sesquidreadnought is a term I made up for a ship with a main battery in more than two turrets and a heavy secondary battery.
Therefore, I propose either that rebuilt CVs (not new construction), be able to retain their secondary/tertiary configuration while removing the mains, or else that some mechanism be introduced for converting secondaries to mains and tertiaries to secondaries without the guns being considered all-new by the designer (tertiary to secondary might be useful even for surface ship -> surface ship rebuilds, if a ship with a tertiary battery has its secondaries removed).
Another proposal I would like to make, is that the 8x8 / 8x6 requirement be lifted if a navy already has significant combat experience (battles fought with carriers present, with bonuses for airstrikes made) or operational experience (ship-years of service) with CVLs. For a situation like that of USS Lexington, the 8x8 rule makes sense, the ship is the first non-experimental carrier built by the USN, and the carrier arm isn't yet big enough to have pull in saying what it thinks are the requirements for its ships, or experienced enough to know entirely what those requirements are.
For my Austrian Navy in 1928, having designed its first CVL conversion in 1919, and begun operating it in 1920, with the carrier arm consisting of 14 CVLs and 2 BCs currently being reconstructed to CVLs, with a war under its belt and at least one battleship kill, it feels somewhat contrived to have to design my first CV conversion with 8x8 or 8x6 (according to the size of ship I choose to convert), wait a year for it to enter service (because any other conversions I attempt before it completes will also trigger the 8x8 rule), and then resume making conversions as fast as I have budget for. I'd think my carrier admirals would just say "We never got caught by surface ships in the last war, we'd be hosed anyways if a CA did catch us, and we want to dedicate tonnage to aircraft".
EDIT: A couple addenda:
If the proposal to allow secondary batteries on CV rebuilds without mains is implemented, it might be good to have an "asymmetric secondary battery" tick box, to allow for the secondary battery entirely on the starboard side.
Also, it just struck me that the Lexingtons were not yet completed when converted. Does it actually make sense, in converting a completed ship, to add 8"+ guns that were not originally present, or to move them if present, as might be necessary when converting to a carrier? Can barbettes of that size be added to an existing hull? If not, would typical pre-dreadnought-style secondary turrets for 8" guns be placed such that they could at all be retained in place in a carrier conversion?
Following from the above:
Does it make sense to enforce the 8x8 rule for a complete conversion (as opposed to a new-build, or conversion-in-construction like Lexington), and does adding new guns over 6" need to be forbidden?
Does the retention of existing guns over 6" caliber actually need to be restricted or forbidden for complete conversions? If new 8" barbettes can't be constructed, and the typical 8" barbette is mounted too far inboard, retaining too many 8" turrets might severely constrain hangar space, as well as flight deck area, depending on whether the barbettes can be extended to flight deck level, as well as the possiblity that, if the barbette can't be extended to flight deck level, the 8" turrets would effectively become casemates, would be limited in elevation, and might damage the flight deck with muzzle blast if not trained out far enough, or possibly if fired at all.
*Sesquidreadnought is a term I made up for a ship with a main battery in more than two turrets and a heavy secondary battery.
Therefore, I propose either that rebuilt CVs (not new construction), be able to retain their secondary/tertiary configuration while removing the mains, or else that some mechanism be introduced for converting secondaries to mains and tertiaries to secondaries without the guns being considered all-new by the designer (tertiary to secondary might be useful even for surface ship -> surface ship rebuilds, if a ship with a tertiary battery has its secondaries removed).
Another proposal I would like to make, is that the 8x8 / 8x6 requirement be lifted if a navy already has significant combat experience (battles fought with carriers present, with bonuses for airstrikes made) or operational experience (ship-years of service) with CVLs. For a situation like that of USS Lexington, the 8x8 rule makes sense, the ship is the first non-experimental carrier built by the USN, and the carrier arm isn't yet big enough to have pull in saying what it thinks are the requirements for its ships, or experienced enough to know entirely what those requirements are.
For my Austrian Navy in 1928, having designed its first CVL conversion in 1919, and begun operating it in 1920, with the carrier arm consisting of 14 CVLs and 2 BCs currently being reconstructed to CVLs, with a war under its belt and at least one battleship kill, it feels somewhat contrived to have to design my first CV conversion with 8x8 or 8x6 (according to the size of ship I choose to convert), wait a year for it to enter service (because any other conversions I attempt before it completes will also trigger the 8x8 rule), and then resume making conversions as fast as I have budget for. I'd think my carrier admirals would just say "We never got caught by surface ships in the last war, we'd be hosed anyways if a CA did catch us, and we want to dedicate tonnage to aircraft".
EDIT: A couple addenda:
If the proposal to allow secondary batteries on CV rebuilds without mains is implemented, it might be good to have an "asymmetric secondary battery" tick box, to allow for the secondary battery entirely on the starboard side.
Also, it just struck me that the Lexingtons were not yet completed when converted. Does it actually make sense, in converting a completed ship, to add 8"+ guns that were not originally present, or to move them if present, as might be necessary when converting to a carrier? Can barbettes of that size be added to an existing hull? If not, would typical pre-dreadnought-style secondary turrets for 8" guns be placed such that they could at all be retained in place in a carrier conversion?
Following from the above:
Does it make sense to enforce the 8x8 rule for a complete conversion (as opposed to a new-build, or conversion-in-construction like Lexington), and does adding new guns over 6" need to be forbidden?
Does the retention of existing guns over 6" caliber actually need to be restricted or forbidden for complete conversions? If new 8" barbettes can't be constructed, and the typical 8" barbette is mounted too far inboard, retaining too many 8" turrets might severely constrain hangar space, as well as flight deck area, depending on whether the barbettes can be extended to flight deck level, as well as the possiblity that, if the barbette can't be extended to flight deck level, the 8" turrets would effectively become casemates, would be limited in elevation, and might damage the flight deck with muzzle blast if not trained out far enough, or possibly if fired at all.